• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

L. O. F'in L. at the scribbly Ben Chin banner!

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
octo said:
you think they're gonna burn stuff and just release "god awful pullutants" willy nilly into the atmosphere?

uninformed reactions like yours are what keeps us from looking at and moving to with creative and progressive solutions to long standing problems.

do you think that burning garbage, with pollution safeguards, could burn cleaner than fossil fuels, with pollution safeguards?
 
Cannabis Seed Wedding Bands

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Bass-Invader said:
do you think that burning garbage, with pollution safeguards, could burn cleaner than fossil fuels, with pollution safeguards?
A waste-to-energy plant does not just "burn garbage." Any hazardous or recyclable materials are separated from the trash before incineration. A waste-to-energy plant can also be fitted with the same furnaces and emissions reduction equipment as a fossil fuelled generating plant to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

In addition, like any other electricity generating station in Ontarion, a waste-to-energy plant would be required to abide by the government's emissions caps for these chemical pollutants. The caps apply to both total emissions from the plant and emissions per megawatt hour of electricity generated.
 

Sleepy Giant

TRIBE Member
octo said:
uninformed reactions like yours are what keeps us from looking at and moving to with creative and progressive solutions to long standing problems.
Yes, because I'm the least progressive person on the board.:rolleyes:


Now where the hell did I put my loincloth???
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
A waste-to-energy plant does not just "burn garbage." Any hazardous or recyclable materials are separated from the trash before incineration. A waste-to-energy plant can also be fitted with the same furnaces and emissions reduction equipment as a fossil fuelled generating plant to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter.

In addition, like any other electricity generating station in Ontarion, a waste-to-energy plant would be required to abide by the government's emissions caps for these chemical pollutants. The caps apply to both total emissions from the plant and emissions per megawatt hour of electricity generated.

so is it cleaner?
 

Interchange

TRIBE Promoter
hehe i tried cutting his signs down and deface but hard to do on the danforth when there is a crack cafe across the road and cops zipping up and down the street every 2 secs....

I did manage to make a little... ahh maybe i should not yeah
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Bass-Invader said:
so is it cleaner?
Why does it have to be cleaner? If you are presented with the choice of burning garbage or burning fossil fuels, with no significant difference in emissions, why would you choose fossil fuels?
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
Why does it have to be cleaner? If you are presented with the choice of burning garbage or burning fossil fuels, with no significant difference in emissions, why would you choose fossil fuels?

So you're saying that a garbage burning (okay, sorted garbage) will put out the same (or insignificantly more) amount of pollution as a natural gas power plant with the same power output?
 

octo

TRIBE Member
Bass-Invader said:
So you're saying that a garbage burning (okay, sorted garbage) will put out the same (or insignificantly more) amount of pollution as a natural gas power plant with the same power output?

not only that, but you save the emissions from trucks that would have to carry the garbage to michigan (or whatever they replace michigan with). plus the heat generated by the plant can be used to heat buildings in the vicinity which means less burning of natural gas or oil.
 

Interchange

TRIBE Promoter
Vincent Vega said:
mrs peacock said:
hehe i tried cutting his signs down and deface...../QUOTE]
mrs peacock said:
What are you....twelve?

...

hehe it was fun !! if i have to look at posters of his ugly mug every 2 steps i want to make the posters pretty. The fact that he put one up on our property when i know no one wanted it there, and on aboneded property as well.. fuking obnoxious...
Fukers

I voted Green today !
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Sleepy Giant

TRIBE Member
Vincent Vega said:
Octo, interesting points. Is that last bit about generating sufficient heat for neighbouring buildings actually viable?
Didn't they used to do that kinda thing in Russia? Didn't people used to freeze to death because it was frequently broken down?
 

Bass-Invader

TRIBE Member
octo said:
not only that, but you save the emissions from trucks that would have to carry the garbage to michigan (or whatever they replace michigan with). plus the heat generated by the plant can be used to heat buildings in the vicinity which means less burning of natural gas or oil.

Waste to energy plants, even with the most strict regulatory adherence produce more nasty emissions than their natural gas counterparts. In the context of this thread, a waste to energy plant would be less appealing to the residents of the surrounding area than the current natural gas solution. It would produce higher emissions, have tons of garbage shipped through the area to the plant, and would be just as unsightly to look at.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Sleepy Giant said:
Didn't they used to do that kinda thing in Russia? Didn't people used to freeze to death because it was frequently broken down?
It's called "district heating" and we've already been using it in downtown Toronto for 20 years. Those big windowless concrete buildings located throughout the core with Enwave written on the side are basically massive boilers that burn natural gas and feed steam to surrounding buildings.
 

octo

TRIBE Member
Bass-Invader said:
Waste to energy plants, even with the most strict regulatory adherence produce more nasty emissions than their natural gas counterparts.
how much more? source? how do these extra emissions compare with the emissions from diesel trucks hauling garbage to another country?
In the context of this thread, a waste to energy plant would be less appealing to the residents of the surrounding area than the current natural gas solution. It would produce higher emissions, have tons of garbage shipped through the area to the plant, and would be just as unsightly to look at.

translation: the residents of the neighbourhood don't what to negatively affect their property values, but they still want electricity. they produce garbage but would rather dump it in someone else's back yard than burn it in their own.

obviously no one wants a power plant in their back yard. and obviously putting one near the waterfront that is supposed to be revitalized doesn't make much sense. but we're a couple of heat waves away from brownouts. solutions other than "build it somewhere else" have to be explored. if i were in charge the first thing i would do is tighten up building codes and make it mandatory that every new house/building that is built be Energy Star compliant.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

Sleepy Giant

TRIBE Member
octo said:
How do these extra emissions compare with the emissions from diesel trucks hauling garbage to another country?
The waste fuel isn't going to magically transport itself to the waste burining powerplant. And depending on where the facility is located the gains from this might be modest. You also will be required to truck the recycle and otherwise 'non-burnable' excees from the site. Also aren't the trucks going to Michigan dual purpose? Garbage there and freight back? If that's the case, dedcated garbage trucks would be limited to say a 2 to 3 hour radius (I'm guessing here, I don't know exactly where in Michigan the waste disposal site is) from their origin in order to realize any gains from them.

This is a weak argument and should not be one of the decision points in this discussion.
 
Last edited:

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
The United States Environmental Protection Agency said in February 2003 that waste-to-energy plants can generate electricity with "less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity."

Source

In addition, keeping waste in landfills is not emission-free. By burning waste, many of these gases and compounds are combusted rather than being released into the environment.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
Ditto Much said:
regardless of what is burnt why put it downtown as close to as many people as possible.
It's called voltage support.

Although sufficient generating capacity exists in Ontario to meet total demand across the province, some areas with particularly large loads (e.g., downtown Toronto) will not be able to maintain adequate voltage levels during peak periods because generating plants are simply located too far away.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), who are responsible for maintaining the reliability of Ontario's electricity grid, has identified an urgent need for new supply in downtown Toronto. You are going to be hard pressed to find a location that's not in close proximity to a large number of people.
 

OTIS

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency said in February 2003 that waste-to-energy plants can generate electricity with "less environmental impact than almost any other source of electricity."

Source

In addition, keeping waste in landfills is not emission-free. By burning waste, many of these gases and compounds are combusted rather than being released into the environment.

Got any better sources than that. Considering the high profile scandals involving unqualified appointees in the EPA manipulating studies and documents related to emissions, I as many people consider the EPA somewhat of a sham in its current manifestation -a pro-industry quasi-propaganda group who operate under the guise of the public interest.
 

AdRiaN

TRIBE Member
I won't deny that emissions data, as with any empirical study, is subject to a certain degree of bias or manipulation.

At the same time, the natural gas industry has a strong interest in downplaying the benefits of alternative fuel sources (for obvious reasons).
 

Ditto Much

TRIBE Member
AdRiaN said:
It's called voltage support.

Although sufficient generating capacity exists in Ontario to meet total demand across the province, some areas with particularly large loads (e.g., downtown Toronto) will not be able to maintain adequate voltage levels during peak periods because generating plants are simply located too far away.

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), who are responsible for maintaining the reliability of Ontario's electricity grid, has identified an urgent need for new supply in downtown Toronto. You are going to be hard pressed to find a location that's not in close proximity to a large number of people.


Yes but although it makes sense from a distribution and utilization stand point it makes no sense from an air quality stand point. Power consumption is highest during the hot ddays of summer and this is when the emissions are going to hug the ground the most.

Putting this thing 300 km's out of the city might result in higher transport losses however it will reduce the number of people effected by smog by orders of magnitude. Putting your air pollution source in the centre of your largest downtown core is bad planning.
 
tribe cannabis accessories silver grinders
Top